Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Non-Government Infringement

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Houston, Texas, USA
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    A kudos to Fark.com for bringing this one to my attention:

    http://www.wtvf.com/Global/story.asp?S=6242822

    It goes to show you some people will try to force their beliefs on everyone they can, no matter how many constitutional rights they step on in the process...

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    518

    Post imported post

    Insurance companies are also a source of "non-government infringement". A year or so ago, a gun store here in Farifax, VA was forced to close because the landlord's insurance company found out there was a gun store on the property and jacked up the landlord's liability insurance. The gun store had plenty of liability insurance. It was the insurance company of the restaurant owner landlord who forced the store to close.

    I am convinced that insurance pricing practices are responsible for more than a few anti-gun regulations adopted by employers and forced upon their employees. Employers are looking for the cheapest insurance, so if an insurance company says they can save x% on liability premiums by inserting "no firearms possession on company property" language in employment contracts and employee handbooks, they're going to go for it.

    Insurance companies are responsible for all of the "no loaded firearms" rules in place at the Virginia gun shows I have attended. If the promoter can't get insurance unless he prohibits loaded firearms, then there will be no loaded firearms at the show.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    markand wrote:
    I am convinced that insurance pricing practices are responsible for more than a few anti-gun regulations adopted by employers and forced upon their employees. Employers are looking for the cheapest insurance, so if an insurance company says they can save x% on liability premiums by inserting "no firearms possession on company property" language in employment contracts and employee handbooks, they're going to go for it.
    Hmmmmm.Thank you for that little gem of information. I hadn't thought of it.Maybe its time to force insurance companies todefend that practice.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    Perhaps its time to do some research on which insurance companies are pro gun?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gary, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    518

    Post imported post

    Neighbors said they understand the gun rule is meant to keep criminals out of Nashboro Village but they don't believe that prohibiting firearms is the best way to do that.

    This to me seems to suggest that residents as well as the managers of Nashboro Villagebelieve that the only people who own or have any use for firearms are criminals. It seems to me that rather than keeping criminals out, this rule only serves to keep armed law abiding citizens out. That's like saying that if liquor were not allowed on the premises, there would be no more crashes. Friggin' morons.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    ProtectMd wrote:
    Perhaps its time to do some research on which insurance companies are pro gun?
    Now there is a little project. Call up the major insurance companies to see if they offer better rates if a business declares a "no guns" policy."And vice versa, or neutral.

    Iwonder if NRA has this info already?

    It used to be, and still may be, that some offered better rates if your home was located close to a fire station. Protect from fire, protect from criminals--whats the difference? Oh, I'm sure they'll have one to point out. Probably "tort lawyers can't sue for a house fire as often," or some such. Be a nice ideathough, especially inhigh-crime areas: "All DC residents who elect to carry get 5% off their health insurance." NowTHAT would be nice to hear. Maybe even7% off ifthey carry a BUG.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    tattedupboy wrote:
    Neighbors said they understand the gun rule is meant to keep criminals out of Nashboro Village but they don't believe that prohibiting firearms is the best way to do that.

    This to me seems to suggest that residents as well as the managers of Nashboro Villagebelieve that the only people who own or have any use for firearms are criminals. It seems to me that rather than keeping criminals out, this rule only serves to keep armed law abiding citizens out. That's like saying that if liquor were not allowed on the premises, there would be no more crashes. Friggin' morons.
    You tatally left out the fact that if the housing project was free of weapons they might as well post a sign at the entrance welcome criminals we are totally unarmed and easy pickin, just come on in and take what ever you want or need.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    518

    Post imported post

    In regard to insurance company pricing practices, I have given some thought to the matter. The only thing they really respond to is money, something that applies to insurance companies as well as all of the businesses they insure. Follow the money, as they say.

    Currently there is a substantial monetary penalty for a business to be sued, and their insurance company to defend, any lawsuit that involves firearms possession while on company property. Reaction: Ban firearms on company property, and if you are an insurance company, price your liability coverage based upon the percieved risk! Such pricing results in lower lower premiums for policy holders who ban firearms on company property and parking lots and such.

    At the very least, it would be necessary to remove the monetary incentive to ban firearms and preferably to provide a monetary incentive to allowing legally possessed firearms on company property.

    How do you do that? One way I can think of is to provide limited legal liability immunity to the insured and insurer who ALLOW firearms on company property and NO immunity to those who prohibit firearms on company property.

    Is this practical? I don't know. Would invite comment and "brainstorming".

    One thing I feel certain of: If the financial issue is not addressed in some meaningful manner, this will continue to be a growing issue. These insurance companies are too big to be affected by anything other than large sums of money or laws restricting their behavior.


  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    markand wrote:
    One way I can think of is to provide limited legal liability immunity to the insured and insurer who ALLOW firearms on company property and NO immunity to those who prohibit firearms on company property.

    Is this practical? I don't know. Would invite comment and "brainstorming".
    Probably at a big strategic level nationally withplenty of coordination and everything that goes along with making a deliberate issue stick and resolve in one's own favor.

    At the state level it might be easier. I don't know much about the subject, but I think in VA, the state licenses insurers. It may be possible to do something at the state level and make it work. It would be interesting to see who opposes it for what reasons. Or even better, it might be a good idea to estimate who might oppose it as part of planning.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •